Clarification for package naming policy

[Marc Dequènes (duck) <duck@duckcorp.org>]

Quack,

When I packaged redmine 5.0.0 one package was missing and I created it 
(ruby-deckar01-task-list). Now I recently received #1011414 that tells 
me it's a duplicate o_O.
And indeed it is, ruby-task-list is packaging the same software. Problem 
is `apt search deckar01` returns nothing and task_list is a valid, 
although obsolete, gem (https://rubygems.org/gems/task_list before it 
was forked by deckar01).
I think in this case this is really misleading and we should not 
highjack the original name unless upstream does so. Sometimes forks 
become incompatible and the original project resumes and both diverge 
and one cannot be used in place of the other.

I'm totally fine with changing the dependency in redmine and removing 
ruby-deckar01-task-list. In this case the original gem has been 
unmaintained for years and there's most surely no real consequences but 
I think we should clarify our policy.

Regards.
\_o<

--
Marc Dequènes